The battle for the White House officially begins
By Carol Devine-Molin
web posted March 1, 2004
Sure this presidential campaign has begun early, largely driven by
President George W. Bush's declining poll numbers that were
triggered by ongoing assaults from the Democrats during their
primary season. The simple truth is that the Bush-bashers such as
Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, can
no longer spout their claptrap with impunity. Too bad, so sad for
the Left-leaning crowd, which is about to get a taste of reality
therapy. The president is now on the scene, ready to do political
battle and define Senator Kerry for what he really is -- a
profoundly liberal politico, and dishonest waffler, whose votes
have been antithetical to our national security interests and the
"war on terror." President Bush and fellow Republicans are
certainly not alone on the frontlines -- Kerry's many critics,
including veterans, POW/MIA families, and human rights
activists, are girding for political confrontation with the Senator,
too. Veterans groups particularly possess the moral authority to
challenge John Kerry, who continues to boast about his Vietnam
service. Ironically, Kerry began his political career by accusing
American soldiers in Vietnam of committing unparalleled war
crimes.
Kerry should take heed, as his extreme arrogance and
condescension will not serve him well in this campaign.
Moreover, he better look out for grenades being lobed his way
by elite media types, or should I say "friends of Bill and Hillary."
Kerry has just taken a major political hit due to the dubious
distinction bestowed upon him by the National Journal: He has
the most liberal voting record in the Senate for 2003! That's
tantamount to the kiss of death in a national election. Knowing
Bill and Hillary Clinton, and their legions of media cronies, you
just have to wonder if the infamous couple had their hot little
hands in the mix on this one.
Never underestimate Hillary Clinton and her unbridled
determination to capture the White House in 2008. By that time,
President Bush would have largely disposed of the terrorist nests
throughout the globe, and Hillary would be poised to walk into a
peacetime presidency -- which is what she wants. And as for
John Kerry, he's just a bump on a side road in the grand scheme
of things. Sure the GOP will attempt to fend off Hillary in 2008,
but who will win the presidency four years out is anybody's
guess. Importantly, after winning a war, the citizenry generally
gravitates toward a peacetime leader -- Political junkies are
cognizant that the great Winston Churchill was tossed out on his
ear by the British citizenry right after WWII. I wouldn't count on
public gratitude toward the Republicans in 2008 even if
President Bush put every last terrorist to rest.
And, as I've noted, Kerry's critics are gearing up for intense
political combat. Although presidential wannabee John Kerry
righteously revels in his Vietnam "band of brothers" on the
campaign trail, it would be foolhardy to give short-shrift to the
many veterans who want to expose Kerry's ugly under-belly of
deceit that began with his antiwar activism (circa 1970) and
continues until today. Jerry Kiley, New York spokesman and
coordinator for "Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry"
graciously submitted to a short telephone interview with this
writer regarding VVAJK's February 28th demonstration in front
of John Kerry's campaign headquarters located at 373 Park
Avenue in NYC. Kiley, who estimated that "over a thousand"
were present at the event, enthusiastically stated: "The turnout
was incredible! This is just the beginning of our efforts to bring
him (Kerry) down." Kiley was particularly proud of VVAJK's
alliance with Vietnamese Americans for Human Rights in
Vietnam, and asked this pivotal question: "Why did Senator
Kerry stop the Vietnam Human Rights Bill" from moving
forward? Kiley also suggested that an investigation be conducted
into "Kerry's shredding of government documents" that might
have obfuscated the truth about Vietnam era POWs and MIAs.
The subtext to these remarks is that Senator Kerry was more
interested in cozying-up to the Vietnamese communist
government than delving into human rights and POW/MIA
issues.
There are other key remarks in VVAJK's February 23rd press
release worth citing: "It's one thing," said New York Vietnam
veteran Jerry Kiley, "to oppose a war for moral reasons, but it's
dishonorable to take that extra step and support the enemy.
That's what John Kerry did." Ted Sampley, founder of VVAJK
averred: "I have personally dealt with John Kerry on the issue of
US POWs left behind in Vietnam. Kerry is not truthful and is not
worthy of the support of US veterans…To us, he is 'Hanoi
John'." And Mike Benge, former civilian Vietnam POW stated,
"In the Senate, Kerry almost single-handedly prevented a
Vietnam Human Rights (and religious freedom) Bill from coming
to a vote. Meanwhile, the Vietnamese communists continue to
wage a war of repression against our former South Vietnamese
allies and a war of genocide against the Montagnard ethnic
minorities in the Central Highlands of Vietnam." Please note that
the VVAJK coalition is not affiliated with any political party, as
underscored by Jerry Kiley.
The obsession of the Left-leaning crowd (the Democrats and
their cohorts, the elite liberal media) with President Bush's
National Guard service might very well come back to haunt
them. Whether they like it or not, the liberals have now set the
standard for gleaning information from candidates' military
records. Although the Bush campaign is not inclined to challenge
Senator Kerry's wartime record in any manner, arguably, the
American citizenry is entitled to various clarifications and
answers to legitimate questions.
For instance, why did Senator Kerry only serve about four
months in a Vietnam combat zone? Precisely, how did he
orchestrate a transfer out of Vietnam? Did Kerry utilize an
obscure policy to get out of Vietnam service or was it a
commonly utilized policy? What is the medical documentation for
Kerry's three Purple Hearts since his injuries were apparently so
minor that, by his own admission, he only took a day or two off
in total? Is it accurate that Kerry won his Silver Star by killing a
wounded Viet Cong? Is it accurate that while commanding Swift
Boat 44 he and his crew killed innocent civilians? Did the crew
of Swift Boat 44 demonstrate any type of recklessness that
resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians? Now these queries
might generate thoroughly acceptable explanations from Senator
Kerry, but we have the right to ask them of an individual who
aspires to become President of the United States. Many feel that
it's time for Senator Kerry to produce complete military records,
just as President Bush was required to do as a consequence of
relentless hounding by the press and the Democratic Party.
Carol Devine-Molin is a regular contributor to several online
magazines.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com